Why are white Right Wing Acts of Violence not considered terrorism?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

I'm simply trying to follow this logic. Why has this president gone out of his way to almost lessen the acts of white terrorists? We have congressmen saying White Terrorism is different, Trump freezing money to actually combat white supremacism, There are articles on White Dylann Roof shouldn't be considered a terrorist even though one of his goals was to entice the race war,and no one talking about the recent thwarted Bombing attempt last friday.

Oh. You didn't know?

Not surprised. It seems only local news outlets and the New York Times has any news on it by the time of this post. Michael Estes put a bomb, similar in make up of many bombs used by Islamic terrorists, in a North Carolina airport. When caught and questioned, he literally said he wanted to commit a war on US soil and this was the first step.

Yet nothing. Why is this story buried from CNN, and Fox News and the rest?

More importantly, with the rise of white supremacist groups who feel free enough to gather with all of their weapons, why do we have a government and a populous who tries to downplay the threat that they bring? Why do we blame guns and not the fact that we have dangerous people we are actively trying to turn a blind eye towards instead of facing.

And yes, I do feel the gun conversation is a diversion conversation for the most part. It's an important conversation to have, but I find it only comes up to play when the committer of the act is white. Adam Lanza changed gun laws for a while here in New York State. Paddock is probably going to change the second amendment more. It's not about Gun control. Because as we see, if they don't have guns, they'll just get bombs.

It's about people we want to feel safe with and we ignore. It's about looking at a ideology and saying that it's breeding dangerous people. If you're right wing and you're ok with saying that about Islam, you have to be ok with saying that about armed racist militias who literally say often they felt empowered by Trump. And if you're that same right wing person who were ok with Trump passing a Muslim ban for safety, you should be livid that Trump is freezing funds that hinder groups set up to fight white domestic terrorists that are actively attacking Americans.

So where is the outrage that we're allowing domestic terrorists in this country, but no one's doing that much about it?

ObsidianJones:
Why is this story buried from CNN, and Fox News and the rest?

Because a terrorist or criminal plot that's been thwarted gets less eyeballs then bitching about the latest tweet Trump has bad. That's the beginning and end of it. The mainstream media only reports what it thinks will get more people to watch, because that leads to more people seeing ads which leads to more ad revenue. That's how this works.

More importantly, with the rise of white supremacist groups who feel free enough to gather with all of their weapons, why do we have a government and a populous who tries to downplay the threat that they bring?

Because one girl being run over by an idiot's Charger and a few thwarted attempts at stirring shit up isn't something to get worked up about, especially when you remember that the typical weekend in Chicago has its gang violence lead to far work then the entire decade's worth of far right violence.

If we got worked up over every thing of this size, we'd have no time to actually do anything about it because of how often it happens.

If you're right wing and you're ok with saying that about Islam, you have to be ok with saying that about armed racist militias who literally say often they felt empowered by Trump

Why though? One is far more of a problem then the other when it comes to both proportional and absolute terms, and it's not the one that favours the claims of equivalency you're trying to make here. And it's also one that's far easier to solve: don't let them in in the first place (as is now the majority opinion in Europe), where as the other is a domestic issue that's home grown, and by that nature harder to deal with because again it's home grown.

If anything this is an argument for a Muslim ban if you take it to its logical conclusion.

And if you're that same right wing person who were ok with Trump passing a Muslim ban for safety, you should be livid that Trump is freezing funds that hinder groups set up to fight white domestic terrorists that are actively attacking Americans.

It wasn't a Muslim ban (the vast majority of Muslims in the world where not effected by it), it was a "current warzones are temporarily blocked from entry" ban. And that 10 million was being pissed away, it was doing fuck all for combating terrorism and was cut accordingly. Anyone who claims it was working was a recipient of the money who wants more of it.

So where is the outrage that we're allowing domestic terrorists in this country, but no one's doing that much about it?

Well the left keeps bitching about it violating some part of the constitution they never specify and some poem that doesn't hold any legal weight to pretend we have to take them in no matter what.

I'm all against keeping radicals out before they ever enter, but once the arrive or if they've always been here, unless you're willing to commit crimes against humanity (which in fairness we are getting closer to each day with every truck of peace and rape gang and so forth that keep happening or coming to light, dark times are coming to Europe if the left doesn't stop being insane and fast) there's nothing you can do about it other then try to prevent people from radicalising in the first place, and dealing with the consequences when that fails (and I do mean when. Even Japan has to deal with that issue and that's the country others in the first world hold up as the example to try and emulate).

I was going to make a joke about it being because there was too many brown communists to worry about white guys but then someone got here and made the same point in earnest. Classy.

Its going to be just one of those things. The term originated durring the aftermath of the French Revelution to describe the instigators of the period of mass murdering the very people they were liberating from the last regime called the Great Terror.

For a while, you had terror cells all over, with German and East European being popular parts (Remember Hans Grubber). Who were Radical Freedom Fighting Irish baddies inspired by in Patriot Games again?

Heck, even kiddy stuff got into the act. COBRA was described as a terrorist organization on the show.

The problem is, despite us pale skins having the same trappings as other ethnic groups when it comes to terrorism, most of what we think of are middle Eastern. With 9-11, and several other attacks, what has been simmering since imperialism has come to the surface.

I also think we probably lump most of the radical white groups with the different gangs like we do with cartels or outlaw biker clubs. Its still a group performing less then savory things, but somehow the thug life is not as damning.

Cause bigots run the country.

It's the same with left wing organizations, Micah Xavier Johnson should be considered a terrorist as well as groups like Antifa and extreme enviromentalist groups so let's not pretend only a single side enjoys the benefit.

Anyways, the main reason is that the term is now considered synonymous to Muslim terrorism after so many years and that the term can be attributed to everything (since "everything is political")-"a guy beating is wife is him enforcing patriarchy so he's a terrorist".

Well.
- It was a shitty, half-arsed bombing attempt with no actual motive beyond some sweeping lunatic fantasy and with no organised support or organisation around it. And he possibly didn't even set the bomb. Which makes a pretty shit story, to be honest.
- Gun control is a completely separate issue and nothing to do with what is considered terrorism.
- Most things people want to claim as "right wing terrorism" tend to be just random nutjobs with no actual motive - see the Vegas shooter. Terrorism requires a motive, otherwise it is just murder.
- Quite clearly, you aren't allowing domestic terrorists. They are being prosecuted in accordance with the law.

And the discussion should be more about where you draw the line between hate crimes and terrorism. You shouldn't be trying to call it terrorism every time a white person shoots a black person, or vice versa. It has to be premeditated and have a political end goal.

saint of m:
what has been simmering since imperialism has come to the surface.

That's funny, I don't remember the US having an overseas empire in the Middle East at any point.

And it has nothing to do with imperialism - that's an excuse thrown out by idiots. It has everything to do with a specifically funded, militant hardline branch of Islam being preached from Saudi Arabia.

Because you said it: They are white. Republicans don't want to admit that terrorists are white, because then they have to actually at themselves in the mirror.

Oh i think you already know the answer.

Catnip1024:
Well.
- It was a shitty, half-arsed bombing attempt with no actual motive beyond some sweeping lunatic fantasy and with no organised support or organisation around it. And he possibly didn't even set the bomb. Which makes a pretty shit story, to be honest.
- Gun control is a completely separate issue and nothing to do with what is considered terrorism.
- Most things people want to claim as "right wing terrorism" tend to be just random nutjobs with no actual motive - see the Vegas shooter. Terrorism requires a motive, otherwise it is just murder.
- Quite clearly, you aren't allowing domestic terrorists. They are being prosecuted in accordance with the law.

And the discussion should be more about where you draw the line between hate crimes and terrorism. You shouldn't be trying to call it terrorism every time a white person shoots a black person, or vice versa. It has to be premeditated and have a political end goal.

saint of m:
what has been simmering since imperialism has come to the surface.

That's funny, I don't remember the US having an overseas empire in the Middle East at any point.

And it has nothing to do with imperialism - that's an excuse thrown out by idiots. It has everything to do with a specifically funded, militant hardline branch of Islam being preached from Saudi Arabia.

Philippines, Hawaii, Cuba, and a few other islands, and the the middle section of the North America, not really, no. BUT many European nations did, and carved up parts of the world, put their mark on that land, and said its ours. Prior to this, many of these nations were smaller if they existed as it allowed for the different ethnic and tribal groups to have their own territory. A good thing as many didn't get along any better then the European nations did with their neighbored. However by forcing many in the same new territory, it meant there were going to be problems. Sure they could live together in harmony, and many did and do, but as we saw in Rawanda, that it can take a moment of Crisis like food shortages to bring back up ancient grudges.

The fact many of these areas didn't gain their freedom till this last century, and had to deal with the new form with the USA and the USSR having a nuclear powered arms race, using the developing world as Pawns as the Soviets were, they didn't have alot of reasons to like the "West."

So, again, problems that have been simmering SINCE that period still works.

And those hard line terrorists, today are largely Islamic, but again not always. There was and healthy Christian population among the Palestinians when Palestine was turned into Israel, and its probably not far fetched to believe that a number of the early insurgent groups of this people believed in Jesus the same way I do. There is also the fact that while Saudi Arabia is by no means a nation I would ever want to visit or send any female member of my family to, have had to deal with these nutters as well from ALL PARTS of the middle east. Our Biggest oil rich friend may be a large chunk of the Middle East, but it aint the only part.

Others, like in Afghanistan, fought long and hard against the Soviets but during the cold war, but could not adapt well after pushing them away, so became more fanatical and violent to cope.

Again, to answer the OP, its whats in the news now, its what we focus on. TO add on that, it probably makes alot of people uneasy to think we are producers of fanatical fools who use violence as a be all end all solution that fits their bullying mentality. I have no qualms calling modern white supremacists and Neo Nazis this term, and will do so until a more befitting term comes (a pile of crap is just too good for them).

This is an interesting question with an uninteresting answer.

Historically speaking, this is a perspective problem. "White terrorism" never occurred to Americans as a term because for decades, America was...white. White was the default state; a terrorist who was white needed no further elaboration. So you got "domestic terrorist" instead, which is honestly a better term anyway.

The problem then was the use of terms like "black terrorism" to describe Black Panthers or the Dallas shooter, which is dumb because it implies that the Dallas shooter had some special quality to his actions that makes him different to a regular domestic terrorist. The reason for that, fundamentally, is racism; the unsavory assumption is that if a terrorist is white, he is doing terror because he hates the government, whereas if a terrorist is black, he is doing terror because he hates white people.

More recently, the debate around terrorism terminology has to do with the Obama administration's well-intentioned but mistaken attempt to separate terrorism from Islam by refusing to use the term "Islamic terrorism."

This policy was seized upon by Trump as evidence of uncontrollable political correctness messing with America's military. Trump is now president, and curiously hesitant to refer to far-right extremists as far-right extremists, for largely the same reason Obama was; they're worried it will upset people. Obama was worried he would upset Muslims and the section of the left wing that is sympathetic to the many dysfunctions of Middle Eastern countries. Trump is worried he will upset conservatives and the section of the right wing that thinks Jews have a slick, oily substance instead of blood.

Trump is a very politically correct president, even more so than Obama was. He's just correct about different politics. To Trump, terrorist is a name for brown people, elitist is a word for liberals, "fake news" is a word for any negative press whatsoever, Puerto Rico is a good news story, and Antifa are slaughtering Fox News viewers in their homes. Deviation from that terminology is intolerable; questioning it is insulting; disagreeing with it is an act worthy of political reprisal. Just look at what's happening to Jeff Flake and Bob Corker.

Catnip1024:
That's funny, I don't remember the US having an overseas empire in the Middle East at any point.

You need to brush up on your history, then.

The US has been sending troops off to fight Muslims since the Barbary pirates were a thing. If I was going to name the three largest incidents of US interference in Middle Eastern politics excluding Iraq, it would go;

- Operation Ajax, which caused the Iranian revolution.
- The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which prompted the US to arm local mujahideen that would evolve into al-Qaeda.
- Their decades-long financial and military support of Israel, a state that is basically Hydra in the eyes of most Middle Eastern governments.

You can debate the justifications behind the interference all you want, but the fact is that the US has been messing with the Middle East for a very long time. Did they ever go over there and start a colony? No, but by WW2 colonialism was a bit passe, so they stuck to CIA shenanigans and arms sales. There's even a name for it; google "Eisenhower Doctrine."

And it has nothing to do with imperialism - that's an excuse thrown out by idiots. It has everything to do with a specifically funded, militant hardline branch of Islam being preached from Saudi Arabia.

Again, you need to brush up on your history. Do you know how Wahhabism got into Saudi Arabia? Do you know how Saudi Arabia was formed, and how it has persisted in its unique mixture of noxious fanaticism and gilded excess for the past century?

The answer is Lawrence of Arabia imperialism. Saudi Arabia, and most Middle Eastern states, exist because of a dysfunctional attempt by the WW1 victors to dismantle and apportion the Ottoman Empire into colonial territories. When these mandates and pet monarchies began toppling as soon as Britain's grip weakened c. WW2, America took the slack in the name of getting oil and fighting communism, and the whole clusterfuck has been clusterfucking ever since.

Because 'terrorism' is an obtuse word meant to insult political violence we dislike. It has no strict definition whatsoever and isn't supposed to. It can be vaguely associated with a certain type of violent attacks, certain kind of motives or organisations but if you want to claim that something isn't a terrorist attack there is always something you could pull out of your ass. For the purposes of public debate 'terrorist' serves to denounce. It is barely informative beyond that. In policy terms the word is mostly an excuse to violate the human rights of suspects of certain crimes and for increasing the powers of police, army and secret services.

The solution is not to be more consistent or evenhanded in who we call a terrorist. That would pressupose that the word terrorist has ever or could ever be used in a specific or useful way. Discussing who counts as a terrorist is a battle over rethorical real estate, nothing more. The best option is probably to avoid the word 'terrorism' alltogether.

bastardofmelbourne:
This is an interesting question with an uninteresting answer.

Historically speaking, this is a perspective problem. "White terrorism" never occurred to Americans as a term because for decades, America was...white. White was the default state; a terrorist who was white needed no further elaboration. So you got "domestic terrorist" instead, which is honestly a better term anyway.

The problem then was the use of terms like "black terrorism" to describe Black Panthers or the Dallas shooter, which is dumb because it implies that the Dallas shooter had some special quality to his actions that makes him different to a regular domestic terrorist. The reason for that, fundamentally, is racism; the unsavory assumption is that if a terrorist is white, he is doing terror because he hates the government, whereas if a terrorist is black, he is doing terror because he hates white people.

I looked online and can't find anywhere the term black terrorism, at best I find is "Black Identity Extremists" which also evadees the terrorism handle.

Catnip1024:
That's funny, I don't remember the US having an overseas empire in the Middle East at any point.

You need to brush up on your history, then.

The US has been sending troops off to fight Muslims since the Barbary pirates were a thing. If I was going to name the three largest incidents of US interference in Middle Eastern politics excluding Iraq, it would go;

- Operation Ajax, which caused the Iranian revolution.
- The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which prompted the US to arm local mujahideen that would evolve into al-Qaeda.
- Their decades-long financial and military support of Israel, a state that is basically Hydra in the eyes of most Middle Eastern governments.

You can debate the justifications behind the interference all you want, but the fact is that the US has been messing with the Middle East for a very long time. Did they ever go over there and start a colony? No, but by WW2 colonialism was a bit passe, so they stuck to CIA shenanigans and arms sales. There's even a name for it; google "Eisenhower Doctrine."

And it has nothing to do with imperialism - that's an excuse thrown out by idiots. It has everything to do with a specifically funded, militant hardline branch of Islam being preached from Saudi Arabia.

Again, you need to brush up on your history. Do you know how Wahhabism got into Saudi Arabia? Do you know how Saudi Arabia was formed, and how it has persisted in its unique mixture of noxious fanaticism and gilded excess for the past century?

The answer is Lawrence of Arabia imperialism. Saudi Arabia, and most Middle Eastern states, exist because of a dysfunctional attempt by the WW1 victors to dismantle and apportion the Ottoman Empire into colonial territories. When these mandates and pet monarchies began toppling as soon as Britain's grip weakened c. WW2, America took the slack in the name of getting oil and fighting communism, and the whole clusterfuck has been clusterfucking ever since.

The problem I find with this argument is that it redirects the blame towards outside targets rather than people actually causing the problems. It's like saying that England and France are the ones responsible to WW2 rather than the Germans as their post war settlement was a major rationalization for the Nazis. They have a responsiblity for causing the war but in the end the Germans are the prime culprits. And besides even if the Ottoman empire was split up in a better way the notion it would have turned the Muslim states to some paradise is fantastical. Noxious fanaticism wasn't imported from the west.
Heck, even without taking down the Ottoman empire, the growing ideology of nationalism would have probably destroyed it with groups inside rebelling for self realization.

Also I don't really like the idea that supporting Israel is akin to interfering with the middle east. It paints the idea that a non-muslim nation is somehow "wrong" as the main gripe the muslim countries have with it is its very existence.

inu-kun:
The problem I find with this argument is that it redirects the blame towards outside targets rather than people actually causing the problems.

Why not blame both? Blame is not a malthusian resource. Terrorists are horrible, people funding them are horrible, people who help the people funding terrorists get and stay in power are horrible. We can blame terrorists, Saudi-Arabia and their western allies all at the same time (though in fairness, not all in the same way and to the same degree). The terrorists don't lose any blame when Saudi-Arabia gets some more.

Pseudonym:

inu-kun:
The problem I find with this argument is that it redirects the blame towards outside targets rather than people actually causing the problems.

Why not blame both? Blame is not a malthusian resource. Terrorists are horrible, people funding them are horrible, people who help the people funding terrorists get and stay in power are horrible. We can blame terrorists, Saudi-Arabia and their western allies all at the same time (though in fairness, not all in the same way and to the same degree). The terrorists don't lose any blame when Saudi-Arabia gets some more.

The degree of blame is part of my point (as with the Germany example). I get the feeling that when blaming the west for eventually making the current middle east reality it's using hindsight that wasn't really available at the time and with extreme confidence in a "better" alternative that would have happend without it.

inu-kun:

Pseudonym:

inu-kun:
The problem I find with this argument is that it redirects the blame towards outside targets rather than people actually causing the problems.

Why not blame both? Blame is not a malthusian resource. Terrorists are horrible, people funding them are horrible, people who help the people funding terrorists get and stay in power are horrible. We can blame terrorists, Saudi-Arabia and their western allies all at the same time (though in fairness, not all in the same way and to the same degree). The terrorists don't lose any blame when Saudi-Arabia gets some more.

The degree of blame is part of my point (as with the Germany example). I get the feeling that when blaming the west for eventually making the current middle east reality it's using hindsight that wasn't really available at the time and with extreme confidence in a "better" alternative that would have happend without it.

Fair enough, I have no problem with citing some mitigating factors, but my understanding is that at this very moment Saudi-Arabia is still pretty good buddies with the US and some other big western countries despite the fact that right now we know they are an important factor in spreading the kind of religious extremism that contributes to terrorism. That fact alone doesn't make the US as bad as terrorists but it certainly deserves to be mentioned as part of the problem and given the fact that we know all this, what we do know deserves some blame.

saint of m:
Philippines, Hawaii, Cuba, and a few other islands, and the the middle section of the North America, not really, no. BUT many European nations did, and carved up parts of the world, put their mark on that land, and said its ours. Prior to this, many of these nations were smaller if they existed as it allowed for the different ethnic and tribal groups to have their own territory. A good thing as many didn't get along any better then the European nations did with their neighbored. However by forcing many in the same new territory, it meant there were going to be problems. Sure they could live together in harmony, and many did and do, but as we saw in Rawanda, that it can take a moment of Crisis like food shortages to bring back up ancient grudges.

The thing is, the vast majority of ethnic tensions existed before colonisation. Look at India - they were constantly fighting, that's how the British et al managed to work their way in - playing them off against each other. Assuming that it would have been hunky-dory in the long run is naiive - if the British hadn't occupied India, one of the local factions would likely have taken over given enough time. British rule just obscured the existing tensions because they had someone new to dislike as well.

Africa is another one - you can argue that the arbitrary divisions mixing ethnic groups is causing issues, but the actual issue is the stubborn clinging to tribalism in the modern era. There are plenty of examples of tensions crossing these arbitrary borders. And there is no way of knowing what the continent would look like without colonialism.

And those hard line terrorists, today are largely Islamic, but again not always. There was and healthy Christian population among the Palestinians when Palestine was turned into Israel, and its probably not far fetched to believe that a number of the early insurgent groups of this people believed in Jesus the same way I do. There is also the fact that while Saudi Arabia is by no means a nation I would ever want to visit or send any female member of my family to, have had to deal with these nutters as well from ALL PARTS of the middle east. Our Biggest oil rich friend may be a large chunk of the Middle East, but it aint the only part.

The more hardline variants of Islam are heavily sponsored by Saudi organisations. There is money coming from other places too, yes. It's not about what the individual terrorist believes, it's about who is putting together the framework in which they can come around to thinking a particular way. The individual terrorists come from all over, but are enabled and encouraged by particular Imams ultimately sponsored through Saudi.

Again, to answer the OP, its whats in the news now, its what we focus on. TO add on that, it probably makes alot of people uneasy to think we are producers of fanatical fools who use violence as a be all end all solution that fits their bullying mentality. I have no qualms calling modern white supremacists and Neo Nazis this term, and will do so until a more befitting term comes (a pile of crap is just too good for them).

You aren't a terrorist until you have committed an offence (a violent one, with a political aim). You seem to be condemning people based entirely on their beliefs, which seems a little judgemental.

bastardofmelbourne:
You need to brush up on your history, then.

The US has been sending troops off to fight Muslims since the Barbary pirates were a thing. If I was going to name the three largest incidents of US interference in Middle Eastern politics excluding Iraq, it would go;

- Operation Ajax, which caused the Iranian revolution.
- The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which prompted the US to arm local mujahideen that would evolve into al-Qaeda.
- Their decades-long financial and military support of Israel, a state that is basically Hydra in the eyes of most Middle Eastern governments.

You need to brush up on your geography - I wouldn't call Afghanistan the Middle East.

The thing about Iran is, Iran is Shiite. The Islamic terrorism we are getting all et up about is Sunni. So I doubt the Iranian revolution is a major factor in anyones thinking.

Again, you need to brush up on your history. Do you know how Wahhabism got into Saudi Arabia? Do you know how Saudi Arabia was formed, and how it has persisted in its unique mixture of noxious fanaticism and gilded excess for the past century?

The answer is Lawrence of Arabia imperialism. Saudi Arabia, and most Middle Eastern states, exist because of a dysfunctional attempt by the WW1 victors to dismantle and apportion the Ottoman Empire into colonial territories. When these mandates and pet monarchies began toppling as soon as Britain's grip weakened c. WW2, America took the slack in the name of getting oil and fighting communism, and the whole clusterfuck has been clusterfucking ever since.

Well, judging purely from the brief Wikipedia history, the house of Saud was already seizing regions prior to the outbreak of WW1. The British encouraged the WW1 revolt, but to be honest, would you not expect them to seize their chance to throw off the Ottoman rule anyway?

And Wahhabism predates back to the 18th Century, being an alliance of church and state brought about by the Saudi's. It is pretty much irreversibly linked with the House of Saud.

My personal objection to all this blaming imperialism is that it is incredibly patronising to assume that people aren't totally capable of creating their own clusterfucks. They are. They don't need the white man to help them.

Pseudonym:

inu-kun:

Pseudonym:

Why not blame both? Blame is not a malthusian resource. Terrorists are horrible, people funding them are horrible, people who help the people funding terrorists get and stay in power are horrible. We can blame terrorists, Saudi-Arabia and their western allies all at the same time (though in fairness, not all in the same way and to the same degree). The terrorists don't lose any blame when Saudi-Arabia gets some more.

The degree of blame is part of my point (as with the Germany example). I get the feeling that when blaming the west for eventually making the current middle east reality it's using hindsight that wasn't really available at the time and with extreme confidence in a "better" alternative that would have happend without it.

Fair enough, I have no problem with citing some mitigating factors, but my understanding is that at this very moment Saudi-Arabia is still pretty good buddies with the US and some other big western countries despite the fact that right now we know they are an important factor in spreading the kind of religious extremism that contributes to terrorism. That fact alone doesn't make the US as bad as terrorists but it certainly deserves to be mentioned as part of the problem and given the fact that we know all this, what we do know deserves some blame.

Yes, I mainly referred to the past angle (post ww1) rather than current events of countries going hand in hand with other countries sponsoring terror. Though just about every side of the sunni shiite rivalry is fucked up and has its own share of terrorism.

Catnip1024:
- Most things people want to claim as "right wing terrorism" tend to be just random nutjobs with no actual motive - see the Vegas shooter. Terrorism requires a motive, otherwise it is just murder.

So murder is defined by not having a motive? You want to try that again?

Terrorism does not require a large organization and any counter-terrorism expert will tell you that. A lot of the Muslim terrorists caught in the last few years were lone wolves as well. Terrorism is violence carried out against civilians with a religious/ideological motive intent on using people's fear for their lives to coerce change to the system. What the guy described in the OP did was an attempted act of terrorism. Trying to brand it as anything else is stupid.

BeetleManiac:

Catnip1024:
- Most things people want to claim as "right wing terrorism" tend to be just random nutjobs with no actual motive - see the Vegas shooter. Terrorism requires a motive, otherwise it is just murder.

So murder is defined by not having a motive? You want to try that again?

No. No I do not. Let's go back to basic logic. Not all murder is terrorism. Murder plus geopolitical agenda (outside of the bounds of state sponsored warfare sort of thing) is terrorism. Murder without a political agenda can be whatever the fuck you want to call it. Murder is murder irrespective of motive.

Yay, logic.

To your other point, lone wolves can be terrorists. But not all nutjobs are necessarily terrorists. Some are just nutjobs. See Vegas.

inu-kun:
It's the same with left wing organizations, Micah Xavier Johnson should be considered a terrorist as well as groups like Antifa and extreme enviromentalist groups

Antifa's actions are labeled as terrorist activity and the FBI closely watches eco-terrorists, to the point where a lot of people are wondering why they aren't focusing more on terrorists that actually kill people.

http://www.newsweek.com/are-antifa-terrorists-658396

https://www.rt.com/usa/266866-environmentalists-leftists-fbi-terrorism/

Oh, and eco terrorism isn't anywhere near the problem it used to be, as opposed to right wing terrorism.

https://psmag.com/environment/whatever-happened-to-eco-terrorism

Catnip1024:
No. No I do not. Let's go back to basic logic. Not all murder is terrorism. Murder plus geopolitical agenda (outside of the bounds of state sponsored warfare sort of thing) is terrorism. Murder without a political agenda can be whatever the fuck you want to call it. Murder is murder irrespective of motive.

Yay, logic.

That's not what you said before. You can drop the condescension bullshit at any time.

To your other point, lone wolves can be terrorists. But not all nutjobs are necessarily terrorists. Some are just nutjobs. See Vegas.

The FBI have not made any definitive statements about the Vegas shooter's motives, so how are you so certain?

erttheking:

inu-kun:
It's the same with left wing organizations, Micah Xavier Johnson should be considered a terrorist as well as groups like Antifa and extreme enviromentalist groups

Antifa's actions are labeled as terrorist activity and the FBI closely watches eco-terrorists, to the point where a lot of people are wondering why they aren't focusing more on terrorists that actually kill people.

http://www.newsweek.com/are-antifa-terrorists-658396

https://www.rt.com/usa/266866-environmentalists-leftists-fbi-terrorism/

Oh, and eco terrorism isn't anywhere near the problem it used to be, as opposed to right wing terrorism.

https://psmag.com/environment/whatever-happened-to-eco-terrorism

But Antifa is still treated well in most media outlets despite the labeling, pretty much ignoring it. Which is the question of the OP how the treatment of terrorism from the right wing avoids the "T word".
Also have no idea how much to believe the links added.

Hard to say. For some reason domestic terrorism comitted by non-muslims is very rarely named as such. The only examples i can think of is the car attack on the mosque in London this summer and Breivik, and in Breivik's case they pretty much had no choice because it was the first terrorist attack on norwegian soil since WW2, and he recieved far more personal evaluation than the Charlie Hebdo attacks, the Nice terror or the London Bridge attacks, despite his ideological views being far more outspoken. Generally, the war on terror is an Us vs Them narrative, and that falls apart once traditionally white, christian europeans and americans comitt acts of terror in europe and america, and so the government and media who support the war on terror don't brand them as acts of terror

BeetleManiac:
That's not what you said before. You can drop the condescension bullshit at any time.

Ah, but it's so much fun.

The FBI have not made any definitive statements about the Vegas shooter's motives, so how are you so certain?

Okay, buddy, what terrorist agenda do you think the guy was pushing? Since terrorists usually make that pretty clear, that being the point and all.

The fact that there has been no videos or notes left behind indicates a lone nutjob without a political agenda.

inu-kun:
Snip

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to back up people treating Antifa "well." I google Antifa, go to the news section, and the closest thing I get to seeing someone say nice things about them is saying that they had nothing to do with the Vegas shooting. That's it. The rest shows concern about them, to the point of borderline conspiracy theories. That and, you know, I feel like there's a difference between not calling Antifa terrorists, and not calling the right wing terrorists. Mainly because the right wing has a tendency to kill people when they go crazy, making me feel like it's a wee bit more serious.

If you're going to doubt the links, give an actual reason. Otherwise I'm going to have to conclude that you doubt them because they're inconvenient to your world view.

erttheking:

inu-kun:
Snip

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to back up people treating Antifa "well." I google Antifa, go to the news section, and the closest thing I get to seeing someone say nice things about them is saying that they had nothing to do with the Vegas shooting. That's it. The rest shows concern about them, to the point of borderline conspiracy theories.

If you're going to doubt the links, give an actual reason. Otherwise I'm going to have to conclude that you doubt them because they're inconvenient to your world view.

http://edition.cnn.com/search/?size=10&q=alt%20right%20terrorism
http://edition.cnn.com/search/?size=10&q=antifa%20terrorism

https://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click&contentCollection®ion=TopBar&WT.nav=searchWidget&module=SearchSubmit&pgtype=Homepage#/antifa+terrorism/
https://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click&contentCollection®ion=TopBar&WT.nav=searchWidget&module=SearchSubmit&pgtype=Homepage#/alt%2520right%2520terrorism/
Seems like quite a difference in the amount of results.

Because I have absolutely no idea where you took them from. Should I take every website you link to as the truth-truth? Put actual big news media outlets that I can (sorta) trust in. But wasting my time, Newsweek is the only one seems trustworthy (and it just what you said about the FBI). The other 2 seems about as trustworthy as Breitbart.

Catnip1024:
Okay, buddy, what terrorist agenda do you think the guy was pushing? Since terrorists usually make that pretty clear, that being the point and all.

The fact that there has been no videos or notes left behind indicates a lone nutjob without a political agenda.

I'm waiting to see what's uncovered about this guy before I make definitive truth statements. The guy who was arrested at the airport this week with a bomb saying he wanted to start a war on American soil? That's the guy I specifically called a terrorist in this thread. Do you have an argument that we shouldn't count him as a terrorist?

inu-kun:
Snip

You said that they were treating antifa "well" I don't see any of those stories actually defending Antifa, or saying nice things about them. It's one thing to be mad at people defending Antifa, which is what I thought you were mad about. As it stands, you seem to be taking issue with people not treating right wing terrorists and Antifa as being equally bad. As I've stated before, right wing terrorism tends to be a wee bit more serious, as it tends to end with bodies.

No, but you could give an actual reason why you think they're untrustworthy. Like, oh I don't know, a counter-source? I'm not asking too much from you, am I? And dude, you're arguing on the internet, I'm not wasting your time anymore than you're already wasting your own time.

It's interesting to back to around 2010, when the American media narrative in regards to Terrorism was clear:

I'd reckon now it's that rather than one central narrative, the divide since the Iraq War has led to the narrative around Terrorism splitting into two, with the "Democrat" side (for lack of a better term to refer to this side) have gone back to the 90's climate of fear of Far-Right radicals, while the "Republican" side has stuck to it's Wartime rhetoric. You can say one is undoubtedly more unhinged than the other (though that is relative) but the narratives are still unquestionably about selling paranoia to keep people focused.

It's also interesting to see how this has bled into Britain as well, with how strange the Northern Ireland coverage has been.

BeetleManiac:
I'm waiting to see what's uncovered about this guy before I make definitive truth statements. The guy who was arrested at the airport this week with a bomb saying he wanted to start a war on American soil? That's the guy I specifically called a terrorist in this thread. Do you have an argument that we shouldn't count him as a terrorist?

It doesn't say what war he was planning to fight. It also puts forward an unproven assertion that he never actually set the bomb. There's no indication of whether he was targetting anything in particular, or how he was going to use the bomb (clearly, my favourite scenario would be a Die Hard type robbery, but that is a little unlikely).

He may be a terrorist, but there is no clear political motive. Most terrorists are happy to state their motives as it furthers their cause.

Catnip1024:
It doesn't say what war he was planning to fight.

Splitting hairs.

He may be a terrorist, but there is no clear political motive. Most terrorists are happy to state their motives as it furthers their cause.

So they're not a terrorist unless they write a manifesto with an arbitrary word count?

BeetleManiac:

Catnip1024:
It doesn't say what war he was planning to fight.

Splitting hairs.

He may be a terrorist, but there is no clear political motive. Most terrorists are happy to state their motives as it furthers their cause.

So they're not a terrorist unless they write a manifesto with an arbitrary word count?

A terrorist has a cause. So, the onus is on other people to try and demonstrate what he was doing this for - random nutter until proven terrorist. No, it doesn't necessarily have to be a written admission of guilt - there often ain't enough remaining for that. But there tend to be clues. Like flags, for instance. Web history. Literature.

Catnip1024:
A terrorist has a cause. So, the onus is on other people to try and demonstrate what he was doing this for - random nutter until proven terrorist.

Or at least, lone wolf until proven non-white. So goes the logic in the media right now. Hell, there are people insisting that Dylan Roof isn't a terrorist.

No, it doesn't necessarily have to be a written admission of guilt - there often ain't enough remaining for that. But there tend to be clues. Like flags, for instance. Web history. Literature.

Clues as defined by you or real counter-terrorism experts? Rhetorical question, by the way.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here